Cureality | Real People Seeking Real Cures

Alvin came into the office for consultation on his cholesterol values: LDL 198 mg/dl, HDL, 43 mg/dl, triglycerides 143 mg/dl. He says that he doesn't really try to choose healthy foods but he restricts his overall calorie intake by following the Weight Watcher's exchange approach.

Every morning, 7 days a week, Alvin eats a Sausage McMuffin for breakfast. He justified this by skipping lunch to make up for the 450 calories in the Sausage McMuffin, and not eating anything until dinner.

Can this work? Can you eat foods with unhealthy ingredients but make up the excessive calories by cutting back elsewhere?

The nutritional composition of McDonald's Sausage McMuffin includes 27 grams of total fat (10 gm saturated); 255 mg cholesterol; 950 mg sodium; 31 gm carbohydrate; 2 grams fiber. In other words, it's essentially the same as butter with sugar on it--pure fat, processed wheat, with little fiber or nutritive value.

For Alvin, this is an extremely unhealthy way to eat. His lipid patterns are just the tip of the iceberg: multiple hidden factors are also at work to create heart disease, atherosclerosis in other territories outside the heart, diabetes, high blood pressure, and cancer.

I think the effects are not much different than what Morgan Spurlock achieved in his Super Size Me documentary, but in little bits and pieces. Eating at McDonald's "restaurants" three times a day yielded frightening changes in his lipids, liver function, kidney function, not to mention his appearance and the way he felt. Alvin is doing the same thing, though in less dramatic fashion.

I see this very frequently: people mimicking the experience of Spurlock, just a little at a time, with overindulgence in processed fats and starches.

When you seen a set of Mcdonald's golden arches (or any fast food restaurant, for that matter), run as fast as you can in the other direction. Such indulgences, even in small bits and pieces, still creates a mess of your health.

Many people, upon first learning of their CT heart scan score, feel like they're on the edge of a sharp drop. It can feel like you're facing a vast, unknown abyss. At the bottom, all those dreaded things that can happen to you: heart attack, heart failure, hospitals, even dying.

I've encountered this "deer in the headlights" look many times. It truly can be frightening to hear that your heart scan score is 300, or 500, or whatever.

What I find truly frightening, however, is when your score prompts the usual array of misinformation commonly dispensed by physicians: "That's so bad you need a heart catheterization", "Nobody knows why people get calcified plaque", or "Reversal is impossible". All absolute bunk.

Let your fear motivate you to do something about your risk for heart disease. Aim for reversal of your coronary plaque and seek out the tools to achieve this. It is possible and, in fact, we do it all the time. I can't claim 100% success, but the majority of people who engage in an effort like the Track Your Plaque program to reverse coronary plaque succeed. Even a substantial slowing of plaque growth from the expected 30% per year is better than submitting to the conventional approach.

At the very least, get both LDL and HDL cholesterol around 60 mg/dl. This alone is a major plus in reducing the risks associated with your heart scan score. It doesn't guaranteee reversal, but it sure tips the odds in your favor.

Breakfast cereal manufacturing giant, Kelloggs, is launching a line of three cereals that will carry the "organic" designation: Organic Rice Krispies, Organic Raisin Bran, and Organic Frosted Mini-Wheats.

This reminds me of the advertisements I've seen for "fresh fried chicken", or "fresh from the can", or "contains only pure cane sugar". How about organic tobacco? Would that make cigarettes healthier?

The TV ad ends with the slogan "Childood is calling!" Oh, those marketers are a shrewd, clever bunch. I worry that they're so clever that most people will fall for these ludicrous tricks.

Don't fall for these thinly-shrouded marketing shenanigans. Organic? Who cares. These foods remain unhealthy whether or not they contain pesticide residues. Take a look at the nutritional composition: Rice Krispies, organic or not, is sugar to your body. It is the sort of food that creates pre-diabetes, diabetes, makes us fat, and fans the flames of lipoprotein patterns like small LDL, VLDL, and postprandial particles, all of which is like throwing cow manure on the weed patch of your coronary plaque.

Food manufacturers gave nuts a bad name when they started adding evil ingredients to them. "Party mix", "honey-roasted", mixed nuts, etc., are made with added hydrogenated oils, salt, sugar, excessive quantities of raisins, or other added ingredients that turned a healthy food--nuts--into something that made us fat and hypertensive, raised LDL, dropped HDL, and raised blood pressure.

But nuts themselves are, for the most part, very healthy foods. The very best are nuts with a brown fiber coating like almonds, walnuts, and pecans. Nearly all nuts also come rich in monounsaturated oils similar to that in olive oil. Although calorie-dense, nuts tend to be very filling and slash your appetite for other foods. I have never seen anyone gain weight by adding raw nuts to their diet. In fact, I find adding raw nuts cuts craving for sweets.

Nuts are also among the most concentrated sources of magnesium, containing around 150 mg per 1/2 cup serving. As most Americans are at least marginally if not severely deficient in magnesium, this really helps. Magnesium deficiency is a prominent aspect of "metabolic syndrome" and resistance to insulin.

Some nuts have added benefits like the l-arginine content of almonds or the linolenic acid content of walnuts. However, I think the real health "punch" comes from the fiber and monounsaturate content.

Add 1/4-1/2 cup of raw almonds, walnuts, or pecans per day to your diet and what can you expect? The effects that I see every day that are relevant to plaque control/heart scan score-reducing efforts include:

--Reduction in LDL--usually a 20 mg/dl drop, sometimes more.

--Reduction in triglycerides, especially if nuts replace processed carbohydrate calories. This may be because the fiber and monounsaturate content of nuts reduces blood sugar and the effective glycemic index of any accompanying foods.

--Modest blood pressure reduction.

--Though somewhat inconsistent, partial suppression of the dreaded small LDL particle pattern. We struggle with turning off the small LDL pattern in some people, and raw nuts can provide a real advantage.

If that isn't enough, the fiber content also makes your bowels regular.

Unless there's some reason to avoid nuts (e.g., allergy), nuts should be a part of your heart scan score reducing program. Shop around, as prices can vary wildly. I've been paying $12.99 for a 3 lb bag of raw almonds from Sam's Club, though I've seen almonds elsewhere for up to $12.99 per pound.

For additional commentary, go to one of my favorite Blogs, http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com. The Fanatic Cook's recent post, The Season for Walnuts , provides additional discussion on walnuts and the recent study showing how they improve "endothelial function". The nutritionist behind this Blog has fabulous insights into food, including the concept of "functional foods", i.e., using foods as a treatment tool. She is also unfailingly entertaining.

Stan is 55 years old. He feels fine, is in moderately good physical condition. His LDL cholesterol is 135 mg/dl, HDL 43 mg/dl, triglycerides 167 mg/dl, total cholesterol 211 mg/dl.

Can you tell me whether Stan has heart disease or not?

How about Charles? Charles has an LDL cholesterol of 127 mg/dl, HDL of 44 mg/dl, triglycerides of 98 mg/dl, and total cholesterol of 191 mg/dl. He is also reasonably fit and feels fine. Can you tell whether Charles has heart disease?

If you can't, don't feel bad. Neither can your doctor. But this is the folly of using cholesterol for risk prediction.

Stan's heart scan score: 0

Charles' heart scan score: 978

Look even more closely at Stan's and Charles' cholesterol numbers. Is there some fine distinction we overlooked? What if we calculated total cholesterol to HDL ratio? Or LDL/HDL ratio?

No matter how you squeeze it, shake it, beat it with a stick, you simply cannot use cholesterol numbers to predict heart disease in specific individuals. Yes, the higher your LDL cholesterol and lower your HDL, the higehr your total cholesterol to HDL ratio, the greater the likelihood of heart disease. But you can simply cannot tell in a specific individual at a specific point in time. If you've seen your doctor puzzle over the numbers, understand that he/she is trying to make sense out of something that doesn't make sense, no matter how hard he/she tries.

You simply need to measure the disease itself: get a CT heart scan, the only measure of atherosclerotic coronary plaque that you have access to.

By the way, if you haven't seen it yet, go to the Track Your Plaque website (www.cureality.com) to see the news piece reporting the American Heart Association's much overdue position statement on CT heart scanning. The AHA has finally released a statement which, in effect, provides their "official" endorsement. Blocked by political shenanigans behind the scenes for several years, the guidelines finally made it to press. The only real difference it makes to me is that my patients may finally get their heart scans paid for by insurance, once the insurance companies realize that it's getting tougher and tougher to dodge their responsibility.

How common are muscle aches with the statin drugs?

It depends on who you ask. If you ask the drug manufacturers, they will tell you no more than 2% of people who take them. They back this up with the experience in tens of thousands of people in published clinical trials.

What if we ask people who take them outside of clinical trials. How many then? I estimate, from my large experience, over 80%! In other words, muscle aches are inevitable in nearly everyone who takes them. The longer you take them, the higher your dose, the more likely muscle aches are going to be.

Why the disconnect between published data and real-world experience? I really don't know. In some instances, the differences are dramatic. The ASTEROID trial, for instance, in which Crestor, 40 mg, was given for two years, only resulted in 8% of people dropping out because of side-effects. My experience: everybody--nobody can tolerate this dose for any length of time.

Let me qualify what "muscle aches" mean. It means achiness and/or weakness, usually mild, occasionally moderate to severe, worse upon awakening and less with use. It can affect many muscles or it can involve only one. Rarely is it incapacitating but it is commonly annoying and frightening. It commonly shows up as gradually diminishing strength with exercise. Strength usually returns promptly upon stopping the offending drug.

"Rhabdomyolysis", or true muscle destruction is, fortunately, very unusual in otherwise well people. People with abnormal kidney function, diabetes, and other concurrent illnesses are somewhat more prone. But in reality, rhabdomyolysis is unusual. I've personally seen it twice, both in people sick for other reasons.

Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) supplementation has been a godsend for us. At least 4 out of 5 people who require statins and develop muscle aches respond favorably, but it requires 100 mg per day. The preparation must be oil-based to work, not powder in a capsule which exerts no effect. Some people get by with less; some require as much as 300 mg per day. I've had favorable experiences with the CoQ10 from Sam's Club, GNC, Vitamin Shoppe, and Life Extension (www.LEF.org).

The Track Your Plaque target for LDL cholesterol is 60 mg/dl. Many people do indeed use statins to achieve this level, the level of LDL that amplifies your chances of heart disease reversal, i.e., reduction of heart scan score. The only drawback that I'm aware of with CoQ10 replacement is cost. Beyond this, it's a benign supplement that even supplies higher energy for some people who take it.

I received this fax today from a cardiologist seeking a position:

"I would prefer to perform as many interventions [stents, angioplasties, etc.] as possible..."

That about sums it up, doesn't it? The goal of this young man, trained in major universities including Columbia University, Harvard, and Emory, is not to pursue an avenue of investigation or healthcare that yields real answers. His goal is to perform as many procedures as possible.

This attitude is deeply ingrained in cardiologists. It's also shared by all procedural medical specialties: the drive to do more and more procedures. It's not because it does more good for the public, but it fulfills a primitive impulse to spread your influence, enlarge your territory, and--of course--make more money.

Personally, I find this impulse repulsive. The fact that this young cardiologist looking for a position is willing to make this statement out in the open demonstrates how widely accepted this attitude is. Imagine your cancer surgeon, looking for a new job, said, "I'm looking to remove as many tumors as I can."

My colleagues have lost sight of the fact that we're trying to reduce or eliminate disease, not enrich our pockets or service some primitive impulse to beat others at our game.

I get this comment occasionally, usually from the fishy belching that can occur, rarely because of other crazy effects like rash, fishy body odor, etc.

In the vast majority, fish oil is a benign but wonderfully effective agent. Track Your Plaque followers know that fish oil, starting at 4000 mg per day of a standard 1000 mg capsule preparation, dramatically reduces triglycerides and thereby raises HDL, partially suppresses small LDL, and is the best agent available for reducing postprandial (after eating) abnormalities like IDL and certain VLDL fractions.

However, an occasional person (about 1 in 20) just doesn't like the effects. Are there alternatives? Fish oil packs such a wallop of beneficial effects that can not be replaced by any other single agent or lifestyle practice. For this reason, we have a number of easy strategies to enhance your tolerance for fish oil. (Of course, if your and/or you doctor determine that you're allergic to fish oil, then you should indeed avoid it; thankfully, this is rare.)

Helpful strategies include:

--Refrigerate fish oil capsules--this cuts back on fish belching.
--Take only with meals. This also may increase fish oil's benefits on suppressing after-eating lipoprotein abnormalities.
--Take an enteric-coated preparation--this delays breakdown of the tablet/capsule, making fishy belching less of an issue. Sam's Club has an inexpensive preparation.
--Take liquid fish oil. Usually orange or lemon flavored, liquid fish oil may be a faint fishy taste and odor, but usually not as prominent as the capsules. There's also less stomach upset.
--Coromega--a paste form of fish oil available at health food stores or through http://www.coromega.com. Coromega tastes fruity and comes in little squeeze envelopes.
--Frutol--Pharmax, a British company, makes another fruity fish oil that is non-oily and tastes like apricot. It's actually fairly reasonably priced, too. However, it is hard to find. The only way I know to get is to go online at www.pharmaxllc.com. You may have to actually order through a health care provider.

When using any preparation of fish oil, the best way to determine your dose is to add up the EPA and DHA content. For instance, if you use a fish oil liquid that contains 320 mg EPA and 240 mg DHA per teaspoon, you will need two teaspoons a day to achieve the equivalent of our starting dose of 1200 mg of EPA+DHA, usually provided by 4000 mg total in 4 capsules. Note that some lipid and lipoprotein disorders will require higher doses, e.g., 1800 mg EPA+DHA for high triglycerides (>200 mg/dl) or high IDL.

A recent report in the Journal of the American Medical Association details how a group in the Veneto region of Italy cut back on the incidence of sudden cardiac death in athletes by a simple screening program.

You can read the abstract of the article at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/296/13/1593.

Although sudden death in athletes is still a rare event, it is especially tragic when it happens. In this population, the incidence was 3.6 deaths per 100,000 athletes aged 12 to 35 years. By implementing a simple screening program that involved only a physical examination and an EKG, an astounding 89% reduction in sudden death was documented.

What lessons does this hold for those of us interested in coronary plaque reversal? Beyond the obvious lesson of pointing out the great benefit of simple screening of athletes, I believe that it tells us the value of simple screening tools for heart disease in general. It is my strong belief that, if we were to implement CT heart scans among the broad population of men 40 years and over, women 50 years and over--without regard to cholesterol or other relatively lame risk identifiers--we could slash the risk for heart attack and death 90% or more. Putting CT heart scans into the hands of the public makes your coronary risk obvious. It takes the guesswork out of risk predictors like cholesterol and high blood pressure.

But heart scans are already available, you say! Yes, of course they are. But the lack of insurance reimbursement continues to be a restricting factor for many people, despite the number of lives that could be potentially saved and the money that would be saved in the long run by reducing need for major heart procedures. The continuing resistance to prevention by my cardiology colleagues and the persistent ignorance of primary care physicians also remain major impediments.

But it's getting better. You don't have to be chained by ignorance. Put your CT heart scan to good use.

Tom came into the office ready for a confrontation.

Tom's wife insisted that he see me to discuss the implications of his CT heart scan score of 459. At age 50, this was clearly bad news that placed Tom in the 99th percentile (worst 1% of men in his age group).

But Tom had already undergone a stress test. There had apparently been a small abnormality, and a heart catheterization had been performed by another cardiologist. "They told me they didn't need to do anything. No stent, no ballon, no bypass, nothing!"

I asked, "Did they tell you that there was any plaque or blockages seen?"

"Yeah, but he said it was nothing. So the heart scan was wrong!"

I've been here many times before. I explained to Tom that, no, his heart scan was not wrong. All the tests he'd undergone siimply provided a different perspective on the same disease. You could say:

--The stress test, being a test of blood flow, may have been abnormal because of the abnormal constrictive behavior of arteries containing plaque, known as "endothelial dysfunction", because the inner lining of arteries (the endothelium) control the tone of the artery. Abnormal constriction in arteries with plaque is quite common.

--The catheterization simply showed that no plaque had collected in a configuration to block flow, thus no stent, etc., since flow was normal. But there was indeed plaque.

All three tests were right; none were wrong. They all provided a little different perspective on the same process. Of course, I favor the heart scan as the means to identify, precisely measure, and track the atherosclerotic plaque in your arteries. The stress test is too crude and only measures flow, the catheterization is not something you'd want to undergo year after year. Catheterization also is too crude a measure to precisely track plaque growth or reversal.

So I explained to Tom that, even though a stent or similar procedure was unnecessary, he remained at substantial risk for heart attack due to plaque "rupture". In fact, Tom's heart attack risk was 5% per year, or approximately 50% over the next decade. That is, indeed, substantial. In fact, you might say that, of the three tests Tom underwent, only the heart scan revealed his true risk.

If you'd like to reduce LDL cholesterol with nearly as much power as a statin drug, think thyroid.

When thyroid is corrected to ideal levels, LDL cholesterol drops 20, 30, 40 mg/dl or more, depending on how poor thyroid function and how high LDL are at the start. The poorer the thyroid function (the higher the TSH or the lower the T3 and T4) and the higher the LDL cholesterol, the more LDL drops with thyroid correction.

(For those of you minding LDL particle size, such as Track Your Plaque Members, the "dominant" LDL species will drop: If you are genetic small LDL, small LDL will drop. If you have mostly large LDL because of being wheat-free and sugar-free, then large LDL will drop.)

One of the problems is that many healthcare providers blindly follow what the laboratory says is "normal" or the "reference range," which is usually nothing more than a population average (actually the mean +/- 2 standard deviations, a common method of developing references ranges). In other words, a substantial degree of low thyroid function, or hypothyroidism, can be present when your doctor adheres to the reference range provided by the laboratory.

What does it mean to achieve ideal thyroid status? My list includes:

--Normal oral temperature of 97.3 F first upon arising. (The thyroid is the body's thermoregulatory organ.)
--TSH 1.0 mIU/L or less
--Free T3 upper half "normal" range
--Free T4 upper half "normal" range
--You feel good: mental clarity, energy, upbeat mood. You lose weight when you try.

Iodine replacement should be part of any thyroid health effort. Iodine is not an optional trace mineral, no more than vitamin C is optional (else your teeth fall out). The only dangers to iodine replacement are to those who have been starved of iodine for many years; increase iodine and the thyroid can over-respond. I've seen this happen in 2 of the last 300 people who have supplemented iodine.

In my view, neglecting T3 replacement is absurd. While it is not clear to me why many otherwise healthy people have low T3 at the low range of "normal" or even in the below-normal range, people feel better and have better health--faster weight loss, reduced LDL, reduced triglycerides, they are happier and enjoy more energy--when T3 is increased to the upper half of the reference range. (Crucial question: Why is the 5'-deiodinase enzyme that converts T4 to T3 inhibited, resulting in reduced free T3? What is in our diets or environment that is exerting this effect? I don't have answer, but we sorely need one.)

It pays to be a perfectionist when it comes to thyroid. Not only do you feel better, but LDL cholesterol can drop with a statin-like magnitude, but with none of the adverse effects.

If interested, Track Your Plaque offers fingerstick blood spot testing that you can perform in your own home. Each test kit will test for: TSH, free T3, free T4, along with a thyroid peroxidase antibody (a marker for Hashimoto's thyroiditis, an autoimmune inflammatory condition of the thyroid).

What do you think of these chains of logic?

Cyanide is a potent lethal poison; carbon monoxide is a less lethal poison.
Therefore: plenty of carbon monoxide is good.

Having uterine cancer is a bad thing. Having uterine fibroids is a less bad thing.
Therefore: plenty of uterine fibroids are good.

These are obvious examples of seriously flawed logic. Students of logic and philosophy will recognize the above erroneous sequences as examples of the twisted arguments often used to persuade an argumentative opponent of the logic of a premise. As long ago as 335 B.C., Greek philosopher, Aristotle, recognized the pitfalls of thinking in such arguments. You think we’d know better by now.

Try this one:

White enriched flour is a bad for health; whole grains are less bad for health.
Therefore: plenty of whole grains are good for health.

Ouch!

In the 1960s, we all ate hot dogs on white buns, white flour Wonder Bread® sandwiches, Mom made cookies and cupcakes with white flour. Then, during the 1970s and 1980s, clinical studies were performed demonstrating that whole wheat and whole grains reduced colon cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease compared to white flour. In other words, add back fiber and B vitamins and health benefits develop: No argument here.

Therefore: whole grains must be good for health. Further, lots of whole grains?unlimited quantities of whole grains many times per day, every day?must be even better. Even the USDA says so on their nutrition pyramid, with 8-11 servings of grains per day, 4 of which should be whole grains, at the widest portion of the pyramid.

But what happens when you follow this logic through and fill your diet with whole grains?

Look around you and it’s easy to see: Appetite increases, people become obese, blood sugar increases, diabetes develops, HDL cholesterol plummets, triglycerides skyrocket, inflammatory patterns (e.g., c-reactive protein, or CRP) increase, small LDL (the number one cause for heart disease in the obese U.S.!) shoots through the roof.

I would no more fill my diet with “healthy whole grains” than I would close my garage door with the car running.

Pomegranate juice, 8 oz:

Sugars, total 31.50 g

Sucrose 0.00 g

Glucose (dextrose) 15.64 g

Fructose 15.86 g

In your quest to increase the flavonoids in your diet, do you overexpose yourself to fructose?

Remember: Fructose increases LDL cholesterol, apoprotein B, small LDL, triglycerides, and substantially increases deposition of visceral fat (fructose belly?). How about a slice of whole grain bread with that glass of pomegranate juice? The Heart Association says it's all low-fat!

(Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: A full in-depth Special Report on fructose in all its glorious forms and whether this is truly an issue for your health. Fructose tables and the scientific data to establish a safe "threshold" value will be included.)

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Honeydew melon:

Sugars, total 51.97 g

Sucrose 15.87 g

Glucose 17.15 g

Fructose 18.94 g

Because sucrose is half fructose (the other half is glucose), there are approximately 26 grams of fructose per one-half honeydew melon.

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient

Ingredients: High Fructose Corn Syrup, Vinegar, Concentrated Tomato Juice (Water, Tomato Paste), Water, Modified Food Starch, Salt, Honey, Contains Less Than 2% of Molasses, Natural Flavor, Paprika, Spice, Mustard Flour, Guar Gum, Red 40.

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient

Ingredients: Tomato puree (water, tomato paste), high fructose corn syrup, vinegar, salt, water dried onions, contains less than 2% of black pepper, modified food starch, citric acid, dried parsley, dried garlic, xanthan gum, caramel color, potassium sorbate and calcium disodium EDTA as preservatives, molasses, corn syrup, sugar, spices, tamarind, natural flavor

Another in a series of data extrapolations that attempt to predict long-term cancer risk from medical radiation exposure was published in the July 13, 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine, viewable here.

Over the years, I've fussed about the radiation dose used by some centers for CT heart scans. (Note: I'm talking about CT heart scans, not CT coronary angiograms, an entirely different test with different radiation exposure.) In the "old" days, when electron-beam devices (EBT) were the best on the block, the old single-slice CT scanners (the predecessor of the current 64-slice MDCT scanners) exposed patients to ungodly quantities of radiation, while the EBT devices required very small quantities (0.5 mSv or about the equivalent of 4 standard chest x-rays or one mammogram).

But CT technology has advanced considerably. While EBT has been phased out (although it was an exceptional technology, GE acquired the small California manufacturer, then promptly scrapped the operation; you can guess why), multi-detector CT (MDCT) technology has improved in speed, image quality, and radiation exposure.

While it has improved, radiation exposure still remains an issue. The authors of the study applied the scanning protocols used at three hospitals and those in several CT heart scan studies, then calculated radiation exposure. They found a more than ten-fold range of exposure, from 0.8 mSv to 10.5 mSv. (All scanners were MDCT, none EBT.)

That's precisely what I've been worrying about: In the rapid rush to develop new devices, radiation exposure has often been a neglected issue. While some scan centers do an excellent job and take steps to minimize exposure, others barely lift a finger and consequently expose their patients to unnecessary radiation.

However, it's not as bad as it sounds. For one, the study included 16-slice MDCT scanners, a scanner type that I warned people to not use because of radiation. On the current most popular 64-slice devices, much lower radiation exposure is possible, on the order of 0.8-1.2 mSv routinely--if the center takes the effort.

This study, while eye-opening, will achieve some good: CT heart scans are here to stay. But the day-to-day practice of heart scanning should be:

1) standardized
2) conducted with radiation exposure as low as possible, preferably <0.8 mSv

To read more about this issue, below I've reprinted a 2007 full Track Your Plaque Special Report, CT Heart Scans and Radiation: The Real Story.

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

“My personal opinion is that many patients today who are receiving multiple CT scans may well be getting at least comparable doses to subjects that have now developed malignancies from x-ray radiation received in the 1930s and '40s. And, similar to those days when the doses were unknown, the dose that patients receive today over a course of years of multiple CT scans is also completely unknown . . .

“I recommend that all healthcare providers become familiar with the concept that 1 in 1000 CT studies of the chest, abdomen, or pelvis may result in cancer.”

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

Is this just hype to generate headlines? Or is the truth buried in the enormous marketing clout of the medical device industry, among which the imaging device manufacturers reign supreme?

It’s been over 110 years since radiation was first used for medical imaging. Over those years, it has had its share of misadventures.

In the 1930s and 1940s, before the dangers of radiation were recognized, shoe shoppers had shoes fitted using an x-ray device of the foot to assess fit. High doses of radiation were used to shrink enlarged tonsils and extinguish overactive thyroid glands. Attitudes towards radiation were so lax that doctors commonly permitted themselves to be exposed without protection day after day, year after year, until an unexpected rise in blood cancers like leukemia was observed. As recently as the 1970s and 1980s, cancers like Hodgkins’ disease were treated with high doses of radiation, also leading to radiation-induced diseases decades later.

Not all radiation is bad. Radiation can also be used as a therapeutic tool and even today remains a useful and reasonably effective method to reduce the size, sometimes eliminate, certain types of cancer. Forty percent of people with cancer now receive some form of radiation as part of their treatment (Ron E 2003).

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

Estimates vary, but most experts estimate that medical imaging provides approximately 15% of total lifetime exposure. In other words, radiation exposure from medical imaging is simply a small portion of total exposure that develops over the years of life. Exposure can be much higher, however, in a specific individual who undergoes repeated radiation imaging or treatment of one sort or another.

For all of us, exposure to medical radiation is part of lifetime exposure from multiple sources, added to the radiation we receive from the world around us. Just by living on earth, we are exposed to radiation from space and naturally-occurring radioactive compounds, and receive somewhere around 3.0 mSv per year (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). (Doses for radiation exposure are commonly expressed in milliSieverts, mSv, a measure that reflects whole-body radiation exposure.) People living in high-altitude locales like Colorado get exposed to an additional 30–50% ambient radiation (1.0–1.5 mSv more per year).

Much of the information on radiation exposure comes from studies like the Life Span Study that, since 1961, has tracked 120,000 Japanese exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs dropped in 1945 (Preston DL et al 2003). Although regarded as a high-dose exposure study for obvious reasons, there are actually thousands of people in this study who were exposed to lesser quantities of radiation (because of distance from the bomb sites) who still display a “dose-response” increased risk for cancer many years later in life. Radiation exposures of as little as 5–20 mSv showed a slight increase in lifetime risk.

Occupational and excessive medical exposure to radiation also provides a “laboratory” to examine radiation risk. Miners exposed to radon gas; patients exposed to the imaging agent, Thorotrast, containing radioactive isotope thorium dioxide and used as an x-ray contrast agent in the 1930s and 1940s and possesses the curious property of lingering in the body for over 30 years after administration; radium injections administered between 1945 and 1955 to treat diseases like ankylosing spondylitis and tuberculosis, all provide researchers an opportunity to study the long-term effects of various types of radiation exposure over many years (Harrison JD et al 2003).

The excess exposure of workers and several hundred thousand nearby residents to the Mayak nuclear plant in Russia has also revealed a “dose-response” relationship, with increasing exposure leading to more cancers, including leukemia and solid cancers of the bone, liver, and lung (Shilnikova NS et al 2003). Nuclear waste released into the Techa river between 1948 and 1956 contaminated drinking water used by over 100,000 Russians. A plant explosion in 1957 also released an excess of radiation into the atmosphere, yielding exposure via inhalation. Some sources estimate that at least 272,000 people have been affected by radiation from the Mayak plant. This unfortunate situation has, however, yielded plenty of data on radiation exposure and its long-term effects.

It’s also been known for several decades that people who receive therapeutic radiation for treatment of cancer, even with the reduced doses now employed, are subject to increased risk of a second cancer consequent to the radiation treatment.

From experiences like this, radiation experts estimate that an exposure of 10 mSv increases a population’s risk for cancer by 1 in 1000 (Semelka RC et al 2007).

This question was recently thrust into the spotlight with publication of a study from Columbia University in New York suggesting that a 20-year old woman would be exposed to a lifetime risk of cancer as high as 1 in 143 consequent to the radiation received during a CT coronary angiogram. (Important note: This was estimated risk from a CT coronary angiogram, not a simple heart scan that we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program.) The risk at the low end of the spectrum would be in an 80-year old man (because of the shorter period of time to develop cancer), with a risk of 1 in 5017. If “gating” to the EKG is added (which many scan centers do indeed perform nowadays), risk for a 60-year old woman is estimated at 1 in 715; risk for a 60-year old male, 1 in 1911 (Einstein AJ et al 2007). This study generated some criticism, since it did not directly involve human subjects, but used “phantoms” or x-ray dummies to simulate x-ray exposure. Nonetheless, the point was made: CT coronary angiograms in current practice do indeed expose the patient to substantial quantities of radiation, sufficient to pose a lifetime risk of cancer.

The media frenzy

The NY Times ran an article called With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests in which they stated:

"According to a new study, the per-capita dose of ionizing radiation from clinical imaging exams in the United States increased almost 600 percent from 1980 to 2006. In the past, natural background radiation was the leading source of human exposure; that has been displaced by diagnostic imaging procedures, the authors said."

“This is an absolutely sentinel event, a wake-up call,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, by the National Council on Radiation Protection. “Medical exposure now dwarfs that of all other sources.”

Radiation is a widely used imaging tool in medicine. Although CT scans of the brain, bones, chest, abdomen, and pelvis account for only 5% of all medical radiation procedures, they are responsible for nearly 50% of medical radiation used. It’s been known for years that increasing radiation exposure increases cancer risk over many years, but the boom of newer, faster devices that provide more detailed images has opened the floodgates to expanded use of CT scanners.

But before we join in the hysteria, let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

Head CT 1 – 2 mSv
Pelvis CT 3 – 4 mSv
Chest CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSv
Coronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSv

Non-CT

Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Chest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Mammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSv
Barium enema exam 3 – 6 mSv
Coronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSv
Sestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSv
Thallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSv

Source: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

A plain, everyday chest x-ray, providing less than 0.1 mSv exposure, provides about the same quantity of radiation exposure as flying in an airplane for four hours, or the same amount of radiation from exposure to our surroundings for 11–12 days. Similar exposure arises from dental x-rays.

If you have a heart scan on an EBT device, then your exposure is 0.5-0.6 mSv, roughly the same as a mammogram or several standard chest x-rays.

With a heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, exposure is ideally around 1.0-2.0 mSv, about the same as 2-3 mammograms, though dose can vary with this technology depending on how it is performed (gated to the EKG, device settings, etc.)

CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 or more chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now, that's a problem.

The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legitimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

It’s also worth giving second thought to any full body scan you might be considering. These screening studies include scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. These scans, performed for screening, expose the recipient to approximately 10 mSv of radiation (Radiological Society of North American, 2007). Debate continues on whether the radiation exposure is justified, given the generally asymptomatic people who generally undergo these tests.

Always be mindful of your radiation exposure, as the NY Times article rightly advises. However, don't be so frightened that you are kept from obtaining truly useful information from, for instance, a CT heart scan (not angiography) at a modest radiation cost.

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

Unfortunately, practicing physicians and those involved in providing CT scans are generally unconcerned with radiation exposure. The majority, in fact, are entirely unaware of the dose of radiation required for most CT scan studies and unaware of the cancer risk involved. It is therefore up to the individual to insist on a discussion of the type of scanner being used, the radiation dose delivered (at least in general terms), the necessity of the test, alternative methods to obtain the same diagnostic information, all in the context of lifetime radiation exposure.

Our concerns about radiation exposure all boil down to concern over lifetime risk for cancer, a disease that strikes approximately 20% of all Americans. Many factors contribute to cancer risk, including obesity, excessive saturated fat intake, low fiber intake, lack of vitamin D, repeated sunburns, excessive alcohol use, smoking, exposure to pesticides and other organochemicals, asbestos and other industrial exposures, electromagnetic wave exposure, and genetics. Radiation is just one source of risk, though to some degree a controllable one.

Some people, on hearing this somewhat disturbing discussion, refuse to ever have another medical test requiring radiation. That’s the wrong attitude. It makes no more sense than wearing lead shielding on your body 24 hours a day to reduce exposure from the atmosphere. Taken in the larger context of life, radiation exposure is just one item on a list of potentially harmful factors.

It is, however, worth some effort to minimize radiation exposure over your lifetime, particularly before age 60, and by submitting to high-dose testing only when truly necessary, or when the potential benefits outweigh the risks. Thus, with heart scans and CT coronary angiography, some thought to the potential benefits of knowing your score or the information gained from the CT angiogram need to be considered before undergoing the test. Often the practical difficulty, of course, is that your risk for heart disease simply cannot be known until after the test.

In our view, in the vast majority of instances a simple CT heart scan can serve the simple but crucial role of quantifying risk for heart attack and atherosclerotic plaque. CT heart scans yield this information with less than a tenth of the radiation exposure of a CT coronary angiogram. In people without symptoms and a normal stress test, there is rarely a need for CT coronary angiography with present day levels of radiation exposure. Perhaps as technology advances and the radiation required to generate images is reduced, then we should reconsider.

Early experiences are suggesting that the newest 256-slice scanners, now being developed but not yet available, will cut the dose exposure of 64-slice CT angiograms in half (from 27.8 mSv to 14.1 mSv in a recent Japanese study). The 256-slice scanners will allow scanning that is faster over a larger area in a given period of time.

Thankfully, the scanner manufacturers are increasingly sensitive to the radiation issue and have been working on methods to reduce radiation exposure. However, it still remains substantial.

References:
Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007 Jul 18;298(3):317–323.

Harrison JD, Muirhead CR. Quantitative comparisons of cancer induction in humans by internally deposited radionuclides and external radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 2003 Jan;79(1):1–13.

Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzyky M et al. Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. Circulation 2006;113:1305–1310.

Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard J, Saini S. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619–628.

Mayo JR, Aldrich J, Müller NL. Radiation exposure at chest CT: A statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2003; 228:15–21.

Mori S, Nishizawa K, Kondo C, Ohno M, Akahane K, Endo M. Effective doses in subjects undergoing computed tomography cardiac imaging with the 256-multislice CT scanner. Eur J Radiol 2007 Jul 10; [Epub ahead of print].

Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Ron E, Mabuchi K. Dose response and temporal patterns of radiation-associated solid cancer risks. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):43–46.

Ron E. Cancer risks from medical radiation. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):47–59.

Shilnikova NS, Preston DL, Ron E et al. Cancer mortality risk among workers at the Mayak nuclear complex. Radiation Res 2003 Jun;159(6):787–798.

Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, Huda W. Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007 May;25(5):900–9090.

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

A carefully-conducted study by a collaborative research group at University of California-Berkeley has finally closed the lid on the fuss over fructose vs. glucose and its purported adverse effects.

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation--3% increased intra-abdominal fat with glucose; 14.4% with fructose. (Intraabdominal fat is the variety that blocks insulin responses and causes diabetes and inflammation.)

2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol but double the increase for Apoprotein B (an index of the number of LDL particles, similar to NMR LDL particle number).

3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, compared to 13.3% with glucose.

4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.

The authors propose that fructose specifically increases liver VLDL production, the lipoprotein particle that yields abnormal after-eating particles, increased LDL, and provides building blocks to manufacture small LDL particles. The authors also persuasively propose that fructose metabolism, unlike glucose, is not inhibited (via feedback loop) by energy intake, i.e., it's as if you are always starving.

Add to this the data that show that fructose increases uric acid (that causes gout and may act as a coronary risk factor), induces leptin resistance, causes metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes), and increases appetite, and it is clear that fructose is yet another common food additive that, along with wheat, is likely a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic.

Fructose is concentrated, of course, in high-fructose corn syrup, comprising anywhere from 42-90% of total weight. Fructose also composes 50% of sucrose (table sugar). Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose).

Also, beware of low-fat or non-fat salad dressings (rich with high-fructose corn syrup), ketchup, beer, fruit drinks, fruit juices, all of which are rich sources of this exceptionally fattening, metabolism-bypassing, LDL cholesterol/small LDL/ApoB increasing compound. Ironically, this means that many low-fat foods meant to reduce cholesterol actually increase it when they contain fructose in any form.

When you hear or say "fructose," run the other way, regardless of what the Corn Refiners Association says.

Matt came to me because his doctor couldn't reduce his LDL cholesterol.

His doctor had prescribed Zocor (simvastatin), Lipitor, Crestor, even pravastatin, all of which resulted in incapacitating muscle aches and weakness within a week of starting. No surprise, Matt had a jaundiced view of statin drugs.

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

--72% of LDL was small LDL, a moderately severe pattern. (This means that small LDL comprised 112 mg/dl of the total 155 mg/dl LDL; large LDL comprised 43 mg/dl--small LDL was the problem.)

--HDL 42 mg/dl --Triglycerides 133 mg/dl

--No lipoprotein(a)

Beyond lipoproteins, Matt proved severely deficient in vitamin D with a starting level of 18 ng/ml.

Matt's doctor had advised that he avoid salt, as his blood pressure had been borderline high. His thyroid assessment disclosed a TSH of 3.89 mIU/ml with thyroid hormones free T3 and free T4 in the lower half of the normal range.

I therefore asked Matt to:

--Eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars to reduce small LDL
--Add iodine
--Supplement 6000 units of an oil-based vitamin D preparation
--Take fish oil to provide at least 1800 mg EPA + DHA per day
--Take Armour Thyroid 1 grain per day

Several months later on this program, Matt had a repeat basic lipid panel:

--LDL 82 mg/dl--a 47% reduction

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

--Triglycerides 60 mg/dl--a 55% decrease

In addition, vitamin D was 66 ng/ml, TSH was <1.0 mIU/ml with free T3 and free T4 in the upper half of the "reference range." Matt also felt great.

While the numbers could be slightly better, Matt had made tremendous progress towards achieving perfect values.

There you have it: Marked correction of cholesterol values, no statin drugs involved.

Even if you’re not interested in building big muscles like a bodybuilder, there are health benefits to increasing muscle mass: increased bone density, better balance, and fewer injuries. Greater muscle mass means higher metabolic rate, improved insulin responsiveness, lower blood sugar. The inevitable loss of muscle mass of aging can lead to frailty, an increasingly common situation for the elderly. Muscle loss be reversed, health improved as a result.

Since its introduction in 1994, creatine has exploded in popularity, particularly among bodybuilders and athletes interested in gaining muscle mass and strength. But creatine is not just for young weight lifters. If you are just interested in increasing muscle mass for its health benefits, then creatine is something to consider.

A study of creatine supplementation in men, average age 70 years, demonstrated that, when creatine was combined with strength training, it increased muscle mass 250% better than placebo (7.26 lb muscle vs 2.86 lb muscle), along with improved leg strength and endurance. The same group also demonstrated 3.2% increased bone density (measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) after 12 weeks in participants taking creatine with strength training, while the control (no strength training, no creatine) group decreased by 1.0%.

Benefits are not confined to men. Similar results were observed in another study that included women (age 65 and older), with outcomes in females comparable to males. This is especially important for females, given the common development of osteopenia and osteoporosis in postmenopausal females.

Other studies have shown that benefits are maintained after stopping creatine supplementation.

The most popular form of creatine is the monohydrate, generally taken as a “loading” phase of 15-20 grams per day (generally split into 3-4 doses of 5 grams) for 5-7 days, followed by weeks to months of 2-5 grams per day.

An alternative form, polyethylene glycosylated creatine (PEG-creatine) provides similar effects at one-fourth to one-half the dose of creatine, i.e., 1.25-2.5 grams per day.

Despite previous concerns about kidney toxicity with prolonged use, another study showed that athletes taking creatine for up to 21 months have shown no adverse effects on kidney function, lipid (cholesterol) values, or other basic health measures.

Having healthy muscle mass doesn't make you bulge like a bodybuilder. With modest efforts at strength training, augmented with creatine supplementation, you have a wonderful tool to feel better, reduce injury, increase bone density, and combat abnormal insulin resistance, not to mention accelerate weight loss, since lean muscle mass consumes energy.

There has been a lot of debate over whether or not “bio-identical” hormones, i.e., hormones identical to the human form, are superior to non-human forms dispensed by the drug industry.

The FDA is currently taking steps to clamp down on availability of bioidentical hormones and their claims of superiority, despite a groundswell of grassroot support for them. The argument has pitted anti-aging practitioners and the public, as well as the likes of Oprah and Suzanne Somers, against Big Pharma and the FDA, the two forces trying to squash the bioidentical hormone movement.

Regardless of what heavy-handed approach the FDA takes, we already have access to hormones identical to the original human form. It requires no prescription and yields downstream hormones that the human body recognizes as human.

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

Pregnenolone is the first biochemical step in the conversion of dietary cholesterol (yes-cholesterol!) to numerous other hormones. Pregnenolone is the source of the hormones that lie at the center of the bioidentical hormone controversy: estrogens, progesterone, and testosterone. We therefore already have our own over-the-counter, non-prescription form of bioidentical hormones.

Supplemental pregnenolone increases estrogens (mildly), progesterone, and testosterone. Prenenonlone supplementation simply provide more of the basic substrate for hormone production. The increase in hormones is usually modest, not as vigorous as direct hormone replacement like, say, testosterone or progesterone topical creams. But pregnenolone can be useful when small to moderate increases are desired, such as for reduction of Lp(a). A theoretical downside is that pregnenonlone can also convert to cortisol, the adrenal gland hormone that regulates fluid and blood pressure. However, I've not seen any measurable increase in cortisol with low doses of pregnenonlone and limited data suggest that it does not. Pregnenolone also converts to the other adrenal gland hormone, DHEA; I call DHEA "the hormone of assertiveness," since some people who take too much pregnenolone (or direct DHEA) acquire excessive assertiveness.

The key to pregnenolone supplementation is to proceed gradually and begin with a small dose, e.g., 5 mg every morning. Hormonal assessment is best conducted periodically to assess the effects and to determine whether a dose adjustment is in order.

I was re-reading some of the details behind the recently announced COURAGE Trial comparing angioplasty/stent in 1100 people compared to "optimal" medical therapy in another 1100. You'll recall that no difference was found.

In particular, over approximately 5 years, 20% of participants in each group died, experienced heart attacks, or strokes. Of those treated with "timal" medical therapy, 32% ended up getting a procedure like stents or bypass anyway due to deteriorating symptoms.

What is "optimal" medical therapy? I bring this up again because the study investigators in COURAGE, as well as in similar trials, say this with a straight face. Optimal medical therapy means aspirin and/or Plavix (the anti-platelet, aspirin-like blood thinner); "aggressive" statin drug therapy to reduce LDL cholesterol to 60-85 mg/dl; and "anti-ischemic" therapy (that reduces angina and the phenomena of poor coronary blood flow) using nitroglycerin preparations, beta blockers, and other drugs.

I do give credit to the investigators for having the courage to perform this trial in a world hell bent on doing procedures and still reporting the neutral outcome. But the notion of "optimal" medical therapy begs for comment.

Indeed, this is regarded as optimal by most practitioners. Some would even argue excessive, based on the low LDL target achieved. Would you be satisfied with a 20% likelihood of heart attack, stroke, or death or 5 years, a 1 in 5 roll of the dice? I would not. Recall that we aim for near-total elimination of risk.

What could have been further "optimized"? Plenty. For instance:

--What is the real LDL, not the fabricated, calculated LDL? The two can be commonly 100 mg/dl different.

--How about raising HDL to 60 mgd/?

--What about reducing the proportion of small LDL particles? After all, small LDL is the number one cause of heart disease in the U.S., not high LDL.

--What is Lp(a)? If you treat LDL with a statin drug, Lp(a) is unaffected and continues to trigger huge plaque growth. You will fail if this is not identified and corrected.

--What is vitamin D3? One of the most powerful facilitators of plaque reversal I know of.

--What are triglycerides? Triglycerides create hidden particles in the blood like intermediate-density lipoprotein, potent triggers for coronary plaque growth. Speaking of intermediate-density lipoprotein, that's another very important pattern to identify, the after-eating persistence of dietary fats.

--Why aren't they taking fish oil? With a 28% reduction in heart attack and 45% reduction in sudden death from heart attack, this alone would have halved the number of "events" in the "optimal" medical treatment group.

Of course, there's more. But the idea that aspirin, statins, and anti-ischemic therapy is somehow optimal is silly and sad at the same time. But that's the bias. The COURAGE Trial does represent a step forward, a step away from the "stent everyone and everything" mentality that motivates my colleagues, aided and abetted by their co-conspirators, the hospitals. But you and I know better. "Optimal" medical therapy, in truth, can mean a far better approach that can dramatically reduce, perhaps eliminate, risks for events like heart attack. The conventional "optimal" medical therapy will suffice only if you're content with a 20% likelihood of heart attack, death or stroke, or a 32% likelihood of an urgent procedure in your future.

For a detailed report on the very important postprandial (after eating) patterns that contribute hugely to heart disease risk, read my recent article in Life Extension Magazine, available (no cost) at:

Uncovering a Hidden Source of Cardiovascular Disease Risk
at http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2007/mar2007_report_heart_01.htm

For a report on using niacin to reduce risk of heart disease, see another report in the same issue of Life Extension:

Ask the Doctor: Using Niacin to Improve Cardiovascular Health
at
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2007/mar2007_atd_01.htm.

Also, keep your eyes open for a lengthy report focused exclusively on the Track Your Plaque program in an upcoming issue of Life Extension. I'll provide links in this Blog when it comes out.

One of the recent questions on our Track Your Plaque Forum related to what to do about a triglyceride level of 101 mg/dl while on fish oil.

Recall that, contary to conventional thinking like that articulated in the ATP-III cholesterol treatment guidelines, we aim to reduce triglycerides to 60 mg/dl or less. This is important to suppress the formation of abnormal triglyceride-containing lipoprotein particles, especially small LDL, reduced HDL, lack of healthy large HDL, VLDL. ATP-III advises a level of 150 mg/dl or less. Unfortunately, triglyceride levels this high guarantee appearance of all these undesirable particles and an increasing heart scan score.

What's better than 4000 mg of fish oil for its 1200 mg of EPA and DHA (omega-3 fatty acids)? More fish oil. In other words, the 4000 mg fish oil providing 1200 mg EPA + DHA is our minimum. A simple increase to 6000 mg to provide 1800 mg EPA + DHA is usually all that is necessary to reduce triglycerides and put a halt to the cascade of abnormal lipoprotein particles that trigger plaque growth. Occasionally, a somewhat higher dose may be required. Doses are best divided into two, with meals (e.g., three capsules twice a day).

Another important issue: An over-reliance on wheat products can also increase triglycerides. This includes any flour product like breads (regardless of whether it's white, whole wheat, or whole grain--they all raise triglycerides), pretzels, bagels, breakfast cereals, and pasta. A dramatic reduction in wheat-containing products will reduce triglycerides substantially, help you reduce your abdominal fat, reduce blood pressure, raise HDL and reduce small LDL, clear your mind, provide more energy, avoid afternoon "fogginess" . . . Huge benefits.

There are two common forms of heart valve disease: aortic valve stenosis (stiffness) and insufficiency (leakiness), and mitral anular calcification.

Both valve issues are regarded as evidence of senescence, or aging--the older you are, the more likely you will have one or both. Both conditions involve progressive calcium deposition and, to some degree, cholesterol deposition. They might be regarded as phenomena of "wear and tear" just like hip arthritis.

There are no known therapies to stall or stop the development of mitral anular calcification. However, several attempts have been made over the years to identify treatments that can slow or stop the progression of aortic valve disease, which is becoming increasingly common and is addressed by surgical valve replacement when severe. The most recent trials have examined whether high-dose Lipitor (80 mg) has any effect (it did not) and high dose Crestor (40 mg), which slowed but did not stop the deterioration of stiff valves.

It's been my suspicion that vitamins D and K2 may play a crucial factor in valve health. After all, vitamin D is the master controller of calcium deposition. Preliminary data also suggest that people who are intentionally made vitamin K deficient with the drug, Coumadin, develop twice the calcium deposition on aortic valves that non-Coumadin takers develop.

I saw a patient Friday, Marianne. In addition to a moderate heart scan score of 379 at age 71, Marianne had a leaky (insufficient) aortic valve. By an echocardiogram 18 months ago, the valve was moderately leaky. I put Marianne on vitamin D, 4000 units, to raise her blood level to 50 ng/ml.

Last week, I asked Marianne to have another echocardiogram. This time, no leakiness whatsoever--none. I have never seen this happen before. Although Marianne is only one example and we don't want to extrapolate too far from the experience of one person, it's hard not to attribute this phenomenal response to vitamin D supplementation.

I wonder what would have happened if we had added vitamin K2, as well?

Anyway, just another potential wonderful effect of vitamin D restoration.

If you’ve watched the news over the past year, you know that doubt has been cast over the idea that reducing homocysteine blood levels with high doses of B vitamins (B6, B12, and folic acid, or B9) results in reduced risk for heart attack.

Is the homocysteine concept dead? Shall we empty our bottles of costly B vitamins into the trash and move on?

I don’t think so. As detailed in one of our Track Your Plaque Special Reports from a few months ago, I think the homocysteine issue still deserves lots of respect and further investigation. After all, hundreds of clinical studies have connected higher homocysteine levels with greater risk for heart disease, stroke, and aneurysm. Numerous studies, for example, have repeatedly and consistently demonstrated a tripling of heart attack risk when homocysteine levels exceed 14 ?mol/l. Can we dismiss this association because several more recent studies—NORVIT, HOPE, and VISP—suggested that, when starting homocysteine levels are 12.5, that B vitamin supplementation does not reduce heart attack risk?

I think there’s lots more to know about the homocysteine connection. That said, I have never seen a patient who I thought had heart disease strictly because homocysteine was increased.

I believe that we can at least use homocysteine as an index of lifestyle: the higher the homocysteine, the poorer the diet, or the less effective the absorption of B vitamins (especially vitamins B12 and folic acid). Homocysteine levels of <9 micromol/l suggest both adequate intake and absorption of these B vitamins.

If homocysteine is tightly connected with risk for heart disease, yet supplementation of B vitamins fails to reduce risk, might there be another means of connection? Or, could both homocysteine and heart disease be connected in some way that has nothing to do with B vitamins?

Don’t close the book on homocysteine. Just because conventional experience fails to draw connection does not necessarily mean that none exists. If it’s any consolation, taking B vitamins has been correlated with better memory, concentration, and other health benefits, even if no reduction in heart disease develops.

High heart scan scores of, say, greater than 1000 are more difficult to reduce than lower scores.

I learned this lesson early in the experience of trying to drop scores. In the first few years of trying to drop scores, I saw relatively modest scores of 20, 50, or 100 drop readily, even when the usual targets were not fully achieved, and even before the incorporation of some of the more exciting recent additions to the Track Your Plaque program, like vitamin D.

But big scores of 1000, 2000, or 3000 are a tougher nut to crack. In the first few years, what I usually saw was a slowing , or "deceleration," of growth from the expected rate of annual score increase of 30% that would continue for a year or two, followed by zero change. In the first year of effort, for example, a score increase of 18% was common. 10% was common in year two, then finally zero change in year three. Somehow, the more plaque you begin with, the more "momentum" in growth is present and the longer it takes to stop it. Kind of like stopping a compact car versus stopping a freight train.

But more recently, I'm seeing faster drops. Today, Charlie came to the office to discuss his second heart scan. 18 months earlier, Charlie's first scan showed a score of 3,112, high by anybody's standard.

His repeat score: 3,048. While the drop is relatively small on a percentage basis and may even fall within the expected rate of error for heart scans (which tends to be <2% at this high a score), I told Charlie that it still represented a huge success. Not only did he not increase his score by the expected 30% per year, he also brought a charging locomotive to a rapid stop.

Next year, Charlie is targeting a big drop. Given the tools he now has available, I'm optimistic that he will succeed.

Watch for the Track Your Plaque May, 2007 Newsletter in which we will detail Charlie's story further.

If you have a heart attack and land in the hospital where, invariably, you will have a heart procedure. Or, if you get a stent or coronary bypass operation, sometime before your discharge from the hospital, a well-meaning hospital staff dietitian will provide instruction in the American Heart Association (AHA) diet.

Does this diet reduce the risk of heart disease?

The answer depends on where you start. If you begin with a conventional American diet that is enormously influenced by convenience, food manufacturers like Nabisco, General Mills, Quaker Oats, ADM, and Cargill, or food distributors like McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell, then the American Heart Association diet is indeed an improvement. But just a small one. If LDL cholesterol is the yardstick, the average reduction in LDL is between 10 and 15 mg/dl. This is the same amount of change you’d experience by adding 1 tablespoon of oat bran to your diet. Hardly worth boasting about. HDL, triglycerides, blood glucose, and body weight do not change.

The diet could be substantially better. After all, it’s become common knowledge that other diets, such as the so-called Mediterranean diet, the South Beach Diet, and similar broad projects result in far greater changes than the AHA diet dispensed by your hospital and cardiologist. These diets more effectively reduce LDL, raise HDL, reduce triglycerides, reduce C-reactive protein, reduce blood pressure. Diets like South Beach also yield substantial weight loss and reversal of diabetic tendencies, with the magnitude of benefit dependent on the amount of weight lost.

Why this stubborn adherence to the outdated concepts articulated in the AHA diet? Cardiologists would argue that insufficient data has been generated to permit widespread application of these diets. They also differ on whether they really work. Of course, the majority remain ignorant and dismiss them as fad diets.

A little digging into the financial disclosures of the AHA suggests another, more malignant influence: who is paying the bills? Until recently, drug manufacturers were major contributors to the AHA. However, more recently AHA administrators have become sensitive to the public perception that they might be nothing more than a voice box for the drug industry. They have since limited contributions from the drug companies to 8% of annual charitable revenues.

The drug manufacturers have been replaced by the food industry. In addition to food manufacturers that make the cereals on your grocery shelf, it includes the multi-national conglomerates that produce unimaginable revenues and carry enormous political clout, like ADM and Cargill. Ever wonder how it is that Honey Nut Cheerios received a “Heart Healthy” endorsement from the AHA?

The AHA diet does not provide the answers we’re looking for, not even close. It is a perversion from an organization that has its strings pulled by industry. The answers to health will not come from the AHA, AMA, the American College of Cardiology, the American Hospital Association, and it won’t come from your doctor. It won’t come from a titillating report on the evening news or Good Morning America. It will come from collective and expanding wisdom placed directly into the hands of the public. It will be untainted by the temptation of drug industry dollars. It will not be dirtied by million dollar contributions, or the multi-million dollar behind-closed-doors lobbying of the food manufacturers. It will come from the truth relayed to the healthcare-consuming public. I hope you recognize it when you see it.

If you want a healthy diet for your heart, throw away the pamphlets from the AHA unless you are partial to bread, breakfast cereals, corn, and the supporters of their misguided nutritional advice.

The vitamin K2 story, though still preliminary, is becoming increasingly interesting from the perspective of CT heart score reduction.

The origin of this concept came from some unexpected observations. One, the observation that osteoporosis (lack of bone calcium that leads to fractures) arises from deficiency of vitamin K2. Two, deficiency of K2 leads to unrestrained calcium deposition in animal models, leading to heart attack in just weeks.

Vitamin K2 has been largely ignored for years, since the more widely understood K1 is rarely deficient. K1 deficiency can occur from prolonged antibiotic use, or from severe malnutrition. But deficiency in otherwise well people is very uncommon. Vitamin K2, however, may be a different story. Deficiency may be common.

The Rotterdam Heart Study of cheese-eating Dutch showed that greater K2 intakes resulted in a halving of heart attacks. Cheese (traditional varieties, not Velveeta or other make-believe cheese products) is a modest source of K2, as is the Japanese native food, natto. (If you've ever seen natto, I dare you to eat it. I have a pretty strong stomach and curiousity for food, but natto is the one thing I could not eat--it is truly horrible.)

The weight of evidence suggests that vitamin K2 supplementation may prove to be a useful addition to your coronary plaque control program. Clearly, more data are needed, particulary therapeutic obserations, i.e., observing people who take dose X of a K2 prepartion and tracking some feedback measure, e.g., bone density, CT heart scan score, "events" like heart attack, etc.

Nonetheless, the K2 story is clearly worth reading about, perhaps even considering supplementation. Please watch for the Special Report on the www.cureality.com website in the coming days.

The media has gotten a hold of a case report from the University of Maryland describing a 51-year old physician who, despite being a long distance runner, had a high heart scan score.

An example of the report can be found at

Heart Disease In A Marathon Runner: Is Too Much Exercise A Bad Thing?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315091100.htm in Science Daily.

"The mystery was all the more intriguing because his resting blood pressure and fasting cholesterol levels, the usual measures of cardiovascular health, were in the normal range."

When this man was put on a treadmill for a stress test, his blood pressure skyrocketed from a normal 118/78 to 230/78--extremely high, even for exercise. The physicians reporting the case raised the question of whether long-distance running represents a risk for heart disease and if the high blood pressure with exercise is a contributor or cause of the high heart scan score.

These are phenomena we are very familiar with. We have stressed the importance of exercise blood pressure as a trigger for coronary plaque for years. While 230/78 is clearly too high, we find that any blood pressure over 170/80 with exercise adds to the fire and can trigger plaque growth.

However, I think it is absurd to suggest that marathon running itself is a trigger of coronary plaque. I think it is far more likely that the person described in the report had lipoprotein(a), a potent trigger for both exercise-induced hypertension and high CT heart scan scores in seemingly well people. He likely also suffered from a deficiency of vitamin D deficiency, another contributor. There's no need to indict exercise.

If you are in the Track Your Plaque program, you know that stress tests are of questionable helpfulness for the detection of hidden heart disease. But they are useful for assessment of blood pressure responses during exercise. If BP exceeds 170/80 at 10 mets (a measure of exercise effort achieved by walking 3.4 mph at a 14% grade for 3 minutes), then blood pressure may be a contributor to your heart scan score.

"Fish oil is a waste of time and money. It's stupid. Just stop it."

So a patient of mine was advised by another physician when he complained that he occasionally experienced a fishy aftertaste.

This attitude perplexes me. After all the confirmatory data that support the enormous health benefits of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, including the 11,000 participant GISSI-Prevenzione Trial, you'd think this attitude would be history. What's a little fish aftertaste when heart attack risk is slashed 28%?

Perhaps the tendency to pooh-pooh fish oil is because it's available as a nutritional supplement. This shouldn't make fish oil appear inconsequential. Far from it.

If you witness the extraordinary power for fish oil to reduce triglycerides, you will be immediately convinced of its effectiveness. The ability of omega-3 fatty acids from fish to eliminate intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), the persistent abnormal lipoprotein which signals an inability to clear dietary fats from the blood, can also convince you. More than 90% of people with excessive IDL have it completely eliminated by 4000-6000 mg of fish oil (providing 1200-1800 mg EPA + DHA) per day.

The fact that fish oil is available as a prescription "medication," as well as an over-the-counter supplement, causes some physicians to dismiss the power of the supplemental form. This is nonsense. The over-the-counter form is every bit as effective as the prescription form.

The makers of prescription Omacor also make the claim that their preparation is safer and purer. That may be true, but I'd like to see independent verification from the FDA, USDA, or an unbiased organization like Consumer Reports before I accept their marketing as fact--particularly at $120 to $240 per month! If Omacor proves to contain substantially less mercury and pesticide residues, then that will need to be factored in. (Please note that both Consumer Reports and Consumer Labs measured no substantial mercury or pesticide residues in their analyses of 16 and 41 brands, respectively.)

I try to persuade my colleagues that the idea of taking supplements is a wonderful trend that allows people to express ownership of their own health. What people need is guidance, not salesmanship for a more expensive version, nor dismissal of nutritional preparations that actually possess considerable benefits.

Super size me in little bits and pieces

View from the precipice

Organic Rice Krispies?

Nuts as functional foods

Can you tell the difference?

Statin agents and muscle aches

More catheterizations would make me happy!

"I hate fish oil!"

Sudden death in athletes

My heart scan was wrong!

Thyroid: Be a perfectionist

Nutrition Syllogism

Is pomegranate juice healthy?

Honeydew melon

Where do you find fructose?

Do heart scans cause cancer?

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

Optimal medical therapy

Niacin, postprandial patterns

What's better than fish oil?

Valve disease and vitamin D

Homocysteine and coronary plaque

Big heart scan scores drop

Does the American Heart Association diet reduce heart disease?

Vitamin K2 and coronary plaque

Exercise and blood pressure

"Fish oil is stupid"